• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
What makes leftists like me ejaculate is irrelevant to the topic?

Speaking of which, I am trying to find an example of a suspect telling as many lies as the president and turning out to be innocent. Although I guess if he really believes the false statements he makes every day, then delusional might be a better description than liar.
Either way, a person with that sort world perspective probably shouldn’t be in the Oval Office. All objective observers can agree on that.
 
I had never heard of Mueller prior to his taking the lead on this investigation. What I know about the man now is that he enlisted to fight in Vietnam following his graduation from Princeton. He was decorated for his service, in particular for leading his platoon through heavy fire to extract another that got caught behind enemy lines. When he returned home, he went on to a distinguished career as a federal prosecutor. Sounds like a decent, law-abiding guy.

In contrast, I've known about Trump for at least 30 years. At no point during that time has he done anything to change my initial impression of him as an insincere, tacky, grifting, creepy, windbag. Since 2015, he's had an entire media empire at his disposal to help change my mind but if anything they've managed to convince me that he's far shadier than I ever realized.

All that said, I don't need Trump to be a criminal. I don't have to like him for him to be a good president. It would be marvelous to learn that this Russia investigation had turned up nothing so far, i.e., that we had a legitimately-elected American president, that our foreign policy decisions regarding a criminal dictator were not being driven by someone owned by said dictator, etc. We've got some civilization-ending problems to tackle and the criminal-in-chief is both a huge obstacle and distraction in making progress.

So I'm lighting no votives for Mueller, but it's clear that he's a solid guy doing the job his intelligence and experience tells him must be done. If that job reveals our cartoonish laughingstock of a president to also be a criminal, then so be it. If not, that'd be a good thing. If I'm said president and I know that I'll ultimately be cleared of any implication of wrongdoing, then I'd shut my mouth and do nothing but encourage Mueller to do his job to the best of his ability.
 
As to whether a President can be indicted of crimes beyond impeachment by the House... The last understanding I had on how the courts thought about this, they appeared to have a very reasonable view (IMHO): a sitting President can not be indicted for any of his/her official actions as President, but can be indicted for any of his/actions committed outside of his official functions as President. If this was and remains the prevailing view of the courts then Trump could certainly be indicted right now for any of his illegal actions before he assumed office, and potentially for a subset of his actions after he became president (although some of the latter might be tricky - he would probably try to portray his post election illegal deals with Russia as his foreign affairs strategy and his monetary corruption as economic policy).

However I realize that the topic, indictment of a sitting President, remains controversial and unsettled. I have the feeling that the prevailing view now is that indictment is a no-no for theoretical or practical reasons. What insights do other members have?
 
Ladewig said:
What makes leftists like me ejaculate is irrelevant to the topic?

Speaking of which, I am trying to find an example of a suspect telling as many lies as the president and turning out to be innocent. Although I guess if he really believes the false statements he makes every day, then delusional might be a better description than liar.
Either way, a person with that sort world perspective probably shouldn’t be in the Oval Office. All objective observers can agree on that.
Click to expand...
Oh crap!

He'll be psychologically evaluated and found unable to stand trial due to mental defect.
 
We've had 2 impeachment proceedings both of which resulted in acquittal and one President who basically pulled a "You can't fire me I quit" before his impeachment proceeding happened.... so let's call it three "Impeachments" spread out over a long period of time all 3 with widely different causes, political motivations, and all that various jazz.

We don't really have a "Ur" example of Impeachment (ironically the not-impeachment of Nixon probably comes closet) to point at to argue how impeachment does or should go.
 
Giordano said:
As to whether a President can be indicted of crimes beyond impeachment by the House... The last understanding I had on how the courts thought about this, they appeared to have a very reasonable view (IMHO): a sitting President can not be indicted for any of his/her official actions as President, but can be indicted for any of his/actions committed outside of his official functions as President. If this was and remains the prevailing view of the courts then Trump could certainly be indicted right now for any of his illegal actions before he assumed office, and potentially for a subset of his actions after he became president (although some of the latter might be tricky - he would probably try to portray his post election illegal deals with Russia as his foreign affairs strategy and his monetary corruption as economic policy).

However I realize that the topic, indictment of a sitting President, remains controversial and unsettled. I have the feeling that the prevailing view now is that indictment is a no-no for theoretical or practical reasons. What insights do other members have?
Click to expand...

Remember recently when the judge said Trump can't be too busy for lawsuits because he keeps calling out for them on Twitter? I would hope to see the same if the DoJ brought charges.


Judge: " You want me to tell your own district attorney and attorney general what they cant do? Tell him yourself. And if he remains employed, I assume your objection is not serious."
 
JoeMorgue said:
We've had 2 impeachment proceedings both of which resulted in acquittal and one President who basically pulled a "You can't fire me I quit" before his impeachment proceeding happened.... so let's call it three "Impeachments" spread out over a long period of time all 3 with widely different causes, political motivations, and all that various jazz.

We don't really have a "Ur" example of Impeachment (ironically the not-impeachment of Nixon probably comes closet) to point at to argue how impeachment does or should go.
Click to expand...

You seem to be thinking of impeachment as a deterministic process that necessarily should end in removal of the President. That's why you think Nixon's resignation is a good example: Not because it followed the process, but because had the result you wished for it to have.

I submit that what we can learn from the real-world examples we have of actual impeachment processes, is that impeachment is not a deterministic process for removing the President. Its purpose is not simply to achieve the result you desire. Just as the purpose of a murder trial is not simply to convict the accused.
 
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

edit: this is not a comment or opinion, just quoting the relevant text
 
Last edited:
Imhotep said:
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Click to expand...

A conviction in Federal court doesn't mean he can't be president.
 
BadBoy said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39316&d=1544331018[/qimg]
It's funny how in that picture it makes Trump almost look aggravated that he had to actually lift his leg to step up onto that platform.
Click to expand...

This isn't that long ago, and he looks at least 50 lbs lighter than he does now. he must be stress eating.
 
autumn1971 said:
Any prison time would immediately render him inable to perform the duties of the office
Click to expand...
Maybe they can set up a computer program to artificially generate gibberish on Trump's Twitter feed every few hours. Then Stubby McBonespurs can be stuck in prison and nobody would know the difference.
 
newyorkguy said:
And the right is clearly attempting to demonize Mueller for his investigation of Donald Trump. How dare he! Note the above (from RT) implies Mueller was willingly complicit in endorsing Bush's "bogus case for war with Iraq," as though Mueller knew at the time it was bogus. That Mueller basically lied to Congress when he cited evidence supplied by Secretary Powell as though Mueller knew at the time the evidence was false.
Click to expand...


You're missing the important part. You can't have two different opinions of two different things that someone did at two different points in time. The very idea is madness. You can only have one opinion of someone. Ever.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Where does it say so in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

*One Framer of the Constitution* "Hey guys do we need to put 'And of course the President doesn't to be in prison and still be President like totes obvious?' in there somewhere?"
*The other Framers stare at him*
*One Framer* "You're right the country will never get so pedantic as to need that spelled out for them."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom